Pages

Saturday, December 14, 2013

Movie Review: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

You are planning on having an actual hobbit
in your Hobbit movie, yes?

Is it
time to write off Peter Jackson as a filmmaker? After the LOTR trilogy, it seemed he was ready to conquer the cinematic
blockbuster landscape in the vein of a James Cameron or a Steven Spielberg… But
then came the one-two punch of King Kong
and The Lovely Bones,implying that the filmmaker had perhaps
learned all the wrong lessons from his earlier trilogy, seemingly unwilling to
cut anything from his massive and overwrought narratives. It was hoped that a
return to Middle-Earth would be just the course-correction to put the
film-maker back on track, but the first installment An Unexpected Journey (while not without its charms) was saggy and
bloated - confirming many a fan’s fears that turning a three-hundred page
children’s novel into a trilogy of three-hour films was nothing more than an
exercise in needless excess and greed to wring as much money out of the LOTR franchise as possible. The Desolation of Smaug sadlycontinues the trend in much the same
way: a dense and overcomplicated narrative brought down with each and every
mounting and lengthy scene - a shame, really, as there is much good and notable
work on display elsewhere.

The Desolation of Smaug’s greatest sin
(other than its length) is the sidelining of its main character, played to
perfection once again by Martin Freeman. Freeman is the film’s secret weapon
and greatest asset, able to shoulder the bulk of the huge narrative on his
incredibly capable shoulders, but here disappears into the background of far
too many scenes. This is where the decision to turn the proposed duology into a
trilogy really comes off as especially wrong-headed, as other characters and
scenes are inflated to a degree that they push Bilbo out of the movie completely,
and serve as a perfect example of everything wrong with the Hobbit trilogy thus far: a lack of clear
focus.

As big and unwieldy as
they often got, you could always trace the disparate scenes in the LOTR films right back to the central
quest of Frodo destroying the One Ring. It was what motivated and incited the
action in all the other storylines and character arcs - the binding element
that held the films together. The Hobbit
trilogy has no central story-arc to carry its scenes from one element to the
next. Tolkien’s book acts on two levels: that of Bilbo finding his courage, and
setting up the larger world that would be expounded upon in his later trilogy.
The filmmakers take the relatively simple story of Bilbo and the dwarves and
pad it out with needless narrative elements. We don’t need to spend so much
time with the Necromancer or the elves or the city of Lake-torn; these scenes
act as nothing but clutter to what we should be really caring about: Bilbo’s
journey.

The
rest of the cast performs about as admirably as Freeman does in the “lead,”
although many of their scenes of course have no bearing on what should be the
central drive of the story. The old regulars return and provide much warmth and
pathos to their scenes, such as Ian McKellan returning to Gandalf the Grey -
once again proving to be the best damn cinematic wizard there ever was. Also
making a return appearance is Orlando Bloom’s Constipated Glare as the elf
Legolas - all kidding aside, Bloom’s grown as an actor quite a bit since the
early days, but you couldn’t really tell by watching him here. Legolas was always
a tad one-dimensional, and there’s an attempt to shoehorn him into some
romantic nonsense, but let’s face it: the only reason they brought him back is
for the action beats. Bilbo’s band of dwarves also return, and fare about as
well here as they did in the previous film. We get to learn a bit more about a
few of them, but there’s still way too many for us to care about any of them in
a real, meaningful way. Rounding out the returning principals is Richard
Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield, who continues off the good work he accomplished
in An Unexpected Journey, and even
gets to add a shade more complexity to the character, as we learn that Thorin may
not be quite the stand-up, moralistic hero he’s been made out to be.

A
few new characters come into the story as well, each with their own complicated
backstories and motivation, although still admirably portrayed by their
respective actors. Luke Evans is pretty great as Bard the Bowman, a gifted
archer and secret heir to the throne * who helps Bilbo and the dwarves once
they arrive in Lake-town. Also bringing some zest is Evangeline Lily as
Tauriel, Legolas’s elven companion who begins to fall in love with Kili. I
wound up liking the character and Lily’s performance, but it’s pretty clear she’s
only there so the series can engage in some Twilight-flavored
nonsense between her, Legolas and Kili for the teeny-boppers. But my favorite
of the new performers just might be Benedict Cumberbatch as the dragon Smaug,
who threatens to give Gollum a run for his money in terms of blending performance
and animation, if only the dragon weren’t so one note.

Despite
an excellent cast, The Desolation of
Smaug still feels hollow and shallow when compared to the earlier trilogy.
It’s not just the overabundance of CGI, which pretty much single-handedly
destroys the idea that Middle-Earth is a tactile place you could get lost in. It’s
not the digital photography, which continues to look cold and impersonal when
compared to the original three films. It’s not even the overlong action
set-pieces, which though impressive in fits and starts, come at such a
relentless pace they soon become mind-numbing instead of awe-inspiring.

No,
what makes The Desolation of Smaug pale
in comparison to the LOTR films is
the distinct lack of human emotion. There’s plenty of drama throughout, as
Legolas loves Tauriel and Tauriel loves Kili and Gandalf loves leaving his
companions behind for flimsy narrative reasons to investigate stuff everyone
with half a brain already damn well knows… but despite the earnestness of all
involved, nothing real or human ever comes through in the way it did in Fellowship, when Gandalf talked with
Frodo in the mines about making the right choice; or Sam’s speech about courage
and heroism at the end of Two Towers;
or the remarkable conversation about death that takes place between Gandalf and
Pippin during the massive battle in Return
of the King. Those were the scenes that held the films together, that made
them more than just mere blockbuster entertainment. They were what made us care
about the world and the characters in the first place, and they are entirely
missing here.

We’ll
have to wait and see how There and Back
Again turns out before we can make any final judgments on the series, but
as it stands right now, The Hobbit
trilogy falls far short of its predecessor in every conceivable way. Honestly,
I’m more looking forward to the resulting fan-edits of all three films into one.

*
Speaking of which, there are waaay too many secret heirs to the throne in this
series. There was Aragorn previously, and - wouldn’t you know it - Thorin’s one,
too.

2 comments:

While it is a bit better than the first, that still doesn't mean all that much to begin with. Then again, I'm glad to say I have something to look forward to with this already overlong trilogy. Good review Nathan.